5G 70GHz FCC Coexistence Final 7-12-2017

5G New Radio in mmWave Spectrum Bands
70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul)
July 12, 2017
1 © 2017 Nokia
5G New Radio – 70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul)
Summary/Outline
• Minimal 5G to backhaul interference
• Geometry of existing backhaul deployments limits opportunity for 5G UE interference
• 5G UEs at street level, incumbent backhaul receivers are typically high and above the clutter
• Case study of Lincoln Park neighborhood in Chicago showing impact of UE interference
• Passive Mitigation
• 5G gNB (i.e. 5G base station) placement by design can minimize interference
• 5G UE will have active arrays (e.g. 32 elements) having beam directions that are reciprocal to 5G gNB beams
• Examples of gNB placement to limit UE interference
• Active Mitigation
• Few problematic links can employ 5G Rx probe co-located with the backhaul link receiver
• Detected interference can disable a sub-set of 5G gNB beams preventing re-occurrence of interference incident
• Backhaul Evolution @ 70 GHz
• Existing backhaul nodes will be protected in the current form having minimal interference
• Future backhaul receivers should be 5G NR aware enabling efficient and effective coexistence
• Recommend that interim backhaul deployments require contemporary wireless implementation with resilience to
sparse impulsive interference.
5G NR and Existing Backhaul can coexist and impact of UE interference is minimal

2 © 2017 Nokia
5G NR – 70 GHz Coexistence
Minimal 5G to backhaul interference
3 © 2017 Nokia
• Four databases, each covering an area of radius 300km
Region West coast Midwest East coast
Database Los Angeles San Francisco Chicago New York
Fin. Bay Union Lincoln Lower

All All All Loop All
Dist. Area Square Park Manhattan
No. of links 1013 133 1892 73 814 1743 40 67 5303 245
No. of pairs 911 127 1801 68 797 512 40 51 1685 184
• A link is defined as a two-way connection between two fixed stations over a specific channel
• A pair is defined as a link with unique (Longitude, Latitude) coordinates of the fixed stations.
4 © 2017 Nokia
• Median height of fixed station receivers
is 20 meters
• Appears correlated with the average
building heights
• Heights in Chicago and New York greater
than San Francisco and LA
• 95% of fixed station receivers greater
than 12 meters in most metropolitan
areas
• New York, Chicago & San Francisco have a
common 5th percentile
• LA show 2m above terrain for nodes (this
requires further investigation)
• 5G cell sites will typically be 4 to 6
meters for street level deployments
below the fixed station receivers
95% of fixed station receivers greater than 12 meters in most metropolitan areas
5 © 2017 Nokia
while 5G cell sites will be only 4 to 6 meters
• The vast majority of fixed station nodes
have a receiver tilt angle pointing
horizontally
• New York, Chicago and LA have over 99%
of the fixed station receivers with +/- 10
degree tilt angle
• San Francisco’s hilly terrain is an exception
but likely will have tilt angles pointed above
the building tops and therefore above the
5G cell coverage
6 © 2017 Nokia
• Few fixed station nodes have tilt angles
pointing to the street level
• Larger negative tilt angles are correlated
with higher building height
• 5G interfering signals will typically see a
larger path loss given the height of victim
receivers
Majority of fixed station nodes have a receiver tilt angle pointing horizontally
thus minimizing 5G UE interference to backhaul nodes
7 © 2017 Nokia
• Beamwidths for fixed station receivers
are always narrow
• Per statute, the beamwidths are limited
to 1.2 degrees
• Most 5G signals will be highly attenuated
falling outside the victim receiver’s beam
8 © 2017 Nokia
Minimal 5G to backhaul interference – Summary
• 95% of fixed station receivers are at heights greater than 12 meters in most metropolitan
areas while 5G cell sites will be only 4 to 6 meters above the ground for street level
deployments and consequently will be well below the fixed station receivers
• The vast majority of fixed station nodes have a receiver tilt angle pointing horizontally
directed above the 5G deployments
• Most 5G signals will be highly attenuated falling outside the victim receiver’s beam as
fixed station receiver beamwidths are exceptionally narrow per statute having
beamwidths less than 1.2 degree
9 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results - Geometry
• A building database of Lincoln park

(LP) is used to find blockage: 66 fixed
stations
FSs
• Blockage depends on
– Location of fixed station node
– Location of 5G UE
– Building location, geometry, and height
• Antenna attenuation depends on

– Tilt of the receiver fixed station (FS)
– Relative location of UE-FS link to FS-FS link
10 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results - Parameters
Parameter Values
• No. of users is based on Lincoln Park:
Path loss
• The system is dynamic Time Division Duplex
Carrier frequency (GHz) 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz
(TDD), but the analysis focuses on uplink
transmissions in uplink slots Channel model NR-UMi with actual blockage calculations
• A 25% instantaneous load is assumed in the instead of probabilistic
available uplink slots 5G UE
• Each site covers a region of 200x200m2 with 4 No. of users* 920 uplink UEs schedule per subframe
sectors per site for a total of 917 sites in the EIRP (dBm)** 33.3 and 43
simulation area (6416x5718m2) Locations Randomly deployed outdoors
Antenna height (m) 1.5
** The 33dBm EIRP is based on Fixed stations (FSs)
• UE with 32 antennas (4x4x2) Locations/height
• An antenna gain of 5dBi per element Antenna gain From database
• A transmit power of 1dBm per element Noise figure
Temperature (K) 290
Bandwidth (GHz) 1
11 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results - Calculations
Omni-directional Path loss Interference

• omniPL = PL'() blockFlag + / blockFlag • = EIRP +G − omniPL
where where
– blockFlag = 1 if the link is NLOS, i.e., blocked by a building – EIRP : UE maximum EIRP (dBm)
PL'() blockFlag = (blockFlag × PL234 ) + (~blockFlag × G = G ! + max(A# + A , FTBR ) given in dBi
(PL34 +PL6#7. ))
– –
G ! : maximum antenna gain (dBi)- given from the database
PL6#7. is the vegetation loss
–
– – A : Azimuth attenuation (dB) [source: FCC 47CFR101.115]
– / is log-normal shadowing with standard deviation that – A# : Elevation attenuation (dB) [source: FCC 47CFR101.115]
depends on LOS/NLOS. – FTBR Front-to-back-ratio loss (assumed to be -50dB)
FS Elevation and Azimuth attenuation UE Elevation and Azimuth attenuation

• A{.} = ; G !, <
G !, <=0
== =G ! − 2.5<, 0 < < ≤ 1.2
⋮
12 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results - Finding blockage
FS FS FS
Top view
BLDG BLDG
BLDG UE UE UE
Side view
No blockage No blockage Blockage
13 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – Modeling UE direction
• Azimuth is uniformly distributed <DE ∼ G(0,360)
LMN OLPQ
• Elevation is randomized as JDE = atan R
- ℎTU = 6m; ℎ = 1.5m; W ∼ G 10,100 m
ℎTU JDE
ℎ
W
14 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – Modeling UE direction
• UE antenna attenuation: min{X ,'YY (<'YY ) + X#,'YY (J'YY ), XZ }

– X /#,'YY : Attenuation in azimuth/elevation due to off-axis angle (w.r.t. to the interference axis)
– <'YY = <DE − <\ and J'YY = J\ − JDE
– XZ = 30dB (front-to-back ratio loss)
BH
<'YY
Interference
J'YY
<DE
axis
<\
J\ JDE
ℎ
UE
15 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – CDF of INR
• Distribution of INR added to FSs is shown for
different center frequencies and UE EIRP
• Interference is well below the noise floor of
FSs
• 95th percentile = -8.9dB for 73.5GHz and 43dBm
Lincoln Park: Interference well below the noise floor
16 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – PDF of INR
• Probability density function of INR added to
FSs is shown
• INR is very low and the probability of
INR< -6 dB is 97% for EIRP 43dBm and
99.7% for EIRP 33dBm
• Buildings provide significant blockage of UE
transmissions, protecting FSs
• It is unlikely that a UE aligns perfectly (<1degree) with
the FS
• FSs pointing to ground are already at high altitudes,
increasing the distance to UE significant attenuation
@70/80GHz
17 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – Occurrence of INR > t per victim
• Probability of interference exceeding a
threshold at particular victim receiver is shown
for both 33 dBm and 43 dBm UE
transmissions and 73.5GHz
• The charts clearly show a trend where some
nodes see victim receivers are more
susceptible to interference than others,
specifically 16 and 38
Higher UE transmit power increases the need for

specific mitigation techniques
18 © 2017 Nokia
Lincoln Park Sim Results – Most susceptible fixed backhaul nodes
16 38
• All nodes have relatively low height yet clear sight lines as result of open space
• Mitigation techniques will need to avoid these sight lines with perpendicular
coverage of streets
• Similarly exclusion angles can be created to avoid beams pointed at these
receivers
19 © 2017 Nokia
Passive Mitigation
20 © 2017 Nokia
5G New Radio – 70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul) gNB
Passive Mitigation – 5G gNB Placement
gNB
• 5G gNB placement by design can
minimize interference
• Urban canyons where FSs are FS
Rx
deployed offer inherent protection
from building and structures
gNB
• 5G gNB placement can design 5G
beam coverage perpendicular to gNB
victim receivers to eliminate 5G
interference in most cases
• 5G gNB placement can be adjusted
such that buildings and other blockers
can be employed to effectively gNB
shadow the victim receiver from 5G
gNB interference
gNB
21 © 2017 Nokia
Passive Mitigation – 5G gNB Placement
gNB
• 5G UE beam directions are reciprocal
to those of 5G gNBs
• 5G UE transmission directions will FS
Rx
also be governed by 5G gNB
placement UE gNB
• 5G UE beam transmission will be
perpendicular to victim receivers if 5G gNB
UE
gNB coverage is designed to be
perpendicular
• Correspondingly, 5G gNB placement
can be adjusted such that buildings
and other blockers can be employed gNB
to also shadow the victim receiver
from 5G UE interference UE
gNB
22 © 2017 Nokia
Example TDD frame structure for 5G
20 ms
Radio frame ] Radio frame ] + 1

(50 subframes) (50 subframes)
BRS/Synch/xPBCH Used for beam training, timing and frequency synchronization, broadcasting
ePBCH Contains system information block containing essential information for initial access
xPRACH Random access, scheduling request, beam change request
xPUCCH/xPUSCH/
Uplink/ Downlink control and data channels
xPDCCH/XPDSCH
23 © 2017 Nokia
5G gNB periodically UE finds a good beam
Example 5G beamforming synchronization signals during synchronization,
procedure and broadcast data decodes SIB/MIB on
that beam
UE attempts random
access on the good
5G gNB responds beam
on the same beam
UE transmits
5G gNB periodically uplink data
transmits BRS
UE keeps record
of 4 best beams
5G gNB requests
BSI
UE responds with
BI/BRSRP
5G gNB switches UE switches

beam beam
24 © 2017 Nokia
FS
Rx

Passive Mitigation – 5G gNB Exclusion Angle
gNB
• 5G gNB beam management can
minimize interference by avoiding
offending beams
• 5G gNB can employ exclusion angles
to omit beams directed at a victim
gNB
receiver
• Exclusion angles can be employed in gNB
Exclusion Angle
both azimuth and elevation

• The width of exclusion angles will
depend on the array size and
therefore beamwidth of the 5G gNB
• Holes in 5G gNB coverage from gNB
exclusion zones may be addressed by

neighboring cell gNB
25 © 2017 Nokia
FS
Rx

Passive Mitigation – 5G gNB Exclusion Angle
gNB
• 5G gNB beam management can
minimize UE interference based on the
principle of reciprocity
• 5G gNB can employ exclusion angles to
omit beams that correspond to 5G UE
beams pointed at the victim receiver gNB
• 5G UEs in exclusion zones would attach

to neighboring 5G gNBs directing their gNB
beam away from the victim receiver

• It is acknowledged that 5G UEs may still
attach to reflections of 5G gNB beams
causing the UE to direct their beams in
offending directions. This will be rare gNB Exclusion
and 5G deployments must consider this Angle
for particularly susceptible victims gNB

UE
26 © 2017 Nokia
Previous studies on passive gNB mitigation
• In Nov 2016, Nokia shared results on gNB to fixed station
interference showing exclusion angles are effective
• A statistical model was used to calculate LOS probability
• Results recently published here:
Seungmo Kim, Eugene Visotsky, Prakash Moorut, Kamil Bechta, Amitava Ghosh and
Carl Dietrich, “Coexistence of 5G With the Incumbents in the 28 and 70 GHz Bands,”
IEEE JSAC, vol.35, issue 6, June 2017.
27 © 2017 Nokia
Passive Mitigation – Summary
• 5G gNB placement by design can minimize interference by controlling beam point
direction of gNBs and employing blockers to shield victim receivers
• 5G gNB placement may also minimize interference from 5G UEs based on the principle
of reciprocity. UEs beam direction will be directed at gNBs and therefore may be
managed by gNB placement
• 5G gNB beam management can minimize interference by avoiding offending beams
through the use of exclusion zones protecting victim receivers. Coverage omitted by an
exclusion zone can be addressed by a neighboring cell
• 5G gNB beam management can also minimize UE interference based on the principle of
reciprocity. gNB exclusion zones can be used to protect victim receivers from UE
offending beams.
Passive Mitigation can be achieved by 5G eNB placement and Beam Management
28 © 2017 Nokia
Active Mitigation
29 © 2017 Nokia
Active Mitigation – Introduction
• Active mitigation involves placing a 5G probe at the victim receiver that is 5G protocol
compliant
• The 5G probe will be able to detect an offending beam from either a UE or gNB
• The 5G probe will provide information on offending beams in real time such that interference can be
remedied promptly
• The 5G probe will provide sufficient information such that the gNB beam management system can identify
the offending beams regardless of whether the beams were transmitted by a gNB or UE
• The 5G gNB beam management system can modify exclusion zones to remedy all future
interference events for a given geometry (including reflections)
• A specific gNB beam transmission in BRS subframe may be identified by the beam index when received
by the probe. A gNB may identify the offending beam based on the beam index identification
• A specific UE beam transmission in xPRACH subframe may be identified by the cell specific sequence
and gNB listening beam index. A gNB may modify the exclusion zone based on the listening beam
• Offending beams can be detected quickly on the BRS subframe or xPRACH subframe to
allocating a data channel (e.g. PDSCH and PUSCH)
30 © 2017 Nokia
Active Mitigation – Comments
• Active mitigation need only be employed as a last resort for particular susceptible victim
receivers who are not isolated by their inherent geometry or passive mitigation
techniques
• Interference events prior to active mitigation would be of minimal duration as they can be
detected on the a single symbol within a BRS subframe having a very short duty cycle
prior to quieting ( 0.07% duty cycle)
• The example is based on trial systems in 28 GHz having a beam reference symbol period of only
14 µs. Solutions at 70 GHz having a wider bandwidth can be designed even short on the order of 2
µs.
• Once detected future interference can be precluded as the gNB beam management
system would learn of interference in the environment and construct the appropriate
exclusion angles
• An active management system could be employed in off hours in coordinated manner with
incumbents prior to active service.
31 © 2017 Nokia
Backhaul Evolution @ 70 GHz
32 © 2017 Nokia
Backhaul Evolution @ 70 GHz
• Either by the inherent geometry, passive mitigation or active mitigation
• Current set of incumbent backhauls is relatively small and can easily be addressed by future inband 5G
deployments
• Future backhaul deployments can be 5G NR aware having 5G probe built-in to actively mitigate
interference in real-time more efficiently sharing the spectrum
• 3GPP 5G NR has a planned study item called Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) where 5G deployments
will be self-backhauling. If successful, future fixed station can employ a common protocol with 5G access
systems.
• Recommend that interim backhaul deployments require contemporary wireless implementation with
resilience to sparse impulsive interference.
• Impulsive interference as exhibited by a beam scanning transmission (BRS subframe) or random access attempt
(xPRACH) will be of very short duration, as low 2 µs, and have a low duty cycle of 0.07%, can easily be
compensated by known technology long employed by the 3GPP for mobile radio
• Backhaul deployments in lightly licensed spectrum such as the 70 GHz band should be required to be resilient to
sparse impulsive interference. Techniques such as adaptive hybrid ARQ employing both forward error correction
and retransmission can easily mitigate sparse interference with negligible throughput degradation
33 © 2017 Nokia
Summary
34 © 2017 Nokia
Summary
• Geometry of existing backhaul deployments limit opportunity for 5G UE interference
• 95% of fixed station receivers greater than 12 meters in most metropolitan areas while 5G cell sites will be only 4 to 6 meters for
street level deployments and be well below the fixed station receivers
• Most 5G signals will be highly attenuated falling outside the victim receiver’s beam as fixed station receiver beamwidths are
exceptionally narrow per statute
• Initial simulations in Lincoln Park have shown that INR < -8.9 for 95% of the observations for a maximum powered 5G UE
• Passive mitigation can further minimize interference
• 5G gNB placement by design can minimize interference by controlling beam pointing direction of gNBs and UEs and employing
blockers to shield victim receivers.
• 5G gNB beam management can minimize interference by avoiding offending beams through the use of exclusion zones protecting
victim receivers. Coverage omitted by an exclusion zone can be addressed by a neighboring cell
• Active mitigation may be employed as a last resort for particular susceptible victim receivers who are not isolated
by their inherent geometry or passive mitigation techniques
• Backhaul Evolution @ 70 GHz
• Recommend that interim backhaul deployments require contemporary wireless implementation with resilience to sparse impulsive
interference.
Nokia respectfully requests that the 70/80 GHz Bands remain under consideration as a critical
part of the 5G spectrum pipeline in the U.S. and globally.
35 © 2017 Nokia

5G 70GHz FCC Coexistence Final 7-12-2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5G 70GHz FCC Coexistence Final 7-12-2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5G New Radio in mmWave Spectrum Bands

70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul)

July 12, 2017

5G NR and Existing Backhaul can coexist and impact of UE interference is minimal

Database Los Angeles San Francisco Chicago New York

Fin. Bay Union Lincoln Lower

No. of pairs 911 127 1801 68 797 512 40 51 1685 184

• A building database of Lincoln park

• Antenna attenuation depends on

Omni-directional Path loss Interference

FS Elevation and Azimuth attenuation UE Elevation and Azimuth attenuation

No blockage No blockage Blockage

• UE antenna attenuation: min{X ,'YY (<'YY ) + X#,'YY (J'YY ), XZ }

Lincoln Park: Interference well below the noise floor

Higher UE transmit power increases the need for

Radio frame ] Radio frame ] + 1

xPRACH Random access, scheduling request, beam change request

5G gNB switches UE switches

5G New Radio – 70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul) gNB

both azimuth and elevation

exclusion zones may be addressed by

5G New Radio – 70 GHz Coexistence (5G to Backhaul) gNB

• 5G UEs in exclusion zones would attach

beam away from the victim receiver

for particularly susceptible victims gNB

Passive Mitigation can be achieved by 5G eNB placement and Beam Management

You might also like